Right: In December 2020, the British Gaming Health Alliance released a report which reveals that almost one in six young gamers had, without permission, taken money from their parents, including by use of credit and debit cards, to buy loot boxes. The report also found that minors had borrowed money they could not pay back, to buy loot boxes.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of banning loot boxes
1. Loot boxes appeal to a young and vulnerable user group
Critics of loot boxes are concerned that they are luring young and vulnerable players into behaviours they cannot control and the seriousness of which they do not appreciate.
Those who are concerned about the impact of loot boxes on young gamers note that these items have become a prominent feature of games which are widely played by minors. Video games are extremely popular among children and adolescents. A 2019 study conducted by Interactive Software Federation of Europe showed that 76 percent of children aged 6 to 15 in Europe play video games on any device. Access to video games is fostered by their easy accessibility via tablets or mobile devices, which are used intensively by young
Consumers.
In December 2020, the British Gaming Health Alliance (GHA) released a report which reveals that almost one in six (15 percent) young gamers had taken money from their parents without their permission to buy loot boxes. The report also notes that one in ten (11 percent) had used their parents' credit or debit card to fund their loot box purchases, while the same percentage had borrowed money they could not repay to spend on loot boxes. In the three worse cases reported it was found that families had had to re-mortgage their homes to cover the costs of their children purchasing these products.
Duncan Stephenson, Chair of the GHA, has warned parents against the dangers loot boxes present to their children. He has stated, 'We know that many teenagers will be unwrapping video games for Christmas, and while we know they give a huge amount of enjoyment for many, we are concerned that games containing loot boxes are having an impact on the finances of young people...
Our research suggests that the drive to play games containing loot boxes is encouraging many [young people] to beg, borrow and steal - loot boxes really are the gift that keeps on taking. Aside from the financial cost our latest survey with gamers suggests that the fixation with loot boxes can lead to classic symptoms of addiction including mood swings, problems sleeping, and impacting on their social life...
We are calling for parents to be aware of the risks of loot boxes when buying presents this Christmas, and to boycott games with these predatory mechanics...'
It has been noted that game designers deliberately make it difficult for players to recognise that they are spending real-world currency. This is a major problem when the player is a child.
In 2018, an Australian Senate Committee investigated issues associated with the chance-based components of computer games and the in-game purchases that players are encouraged to make. Submissions to the Committee claimed that users can quickly become unaware of how much money they have spent. Several factors were said to contribute to this - the use of in-game currency; one-click purchasing; and a lack of real-time feedback. Many video games use items such as crystals, gold coins, hearts, or other symbols appropriate for the specific genre of the game to represent currency for micro-transactions.
This is said to make it more difficult for players to recognise the monetary value of the items they are purchasing and so leads to excessive expenditure. The problem is claimed to be particularly acute for young players who are even less likely to recognise the real-world value of the currency they are spending.
Concern has been expressed about the impact these in-game transactions can have on teens. In May 2018, The Guardian quoted a young Reddit user who claims to have spent $10,000 on these transactions. He stated, 'I started spending on in-app purchases, moved to real video games, started on CS:GO skins, then into the gambling scene there. At my worst I was working two jobs and considering dropping out of high school. Please consider how unregulated micro transactions can affect the youth of the world.'
In the same month, May 2018, Republican Senator for Missouri, Josh Hawley, announced that he would be introducing a bill banning 'manipulative' design features in video games that promote loot boxes to underage gamers.
Senator Hawley stated, 'Social media and video games prey on user addiction, siphoning our kids' attention from the real world and extracting profits from fostering compulsive habits.
No matter this business model's advantages to the tech industry, one thing is clear: there is no excuse for exploiting children through such practices.'
Hawley further stated, 'When a game is designed for kids, game developers shouldn't be allowed to monetize addiction. And when kids play games designed for adults, they should be walled off from compulsive microtransactions. Game developers who knowingly exploit children should face legal consequences.'
2. Games incorporating loot boxes manipulate players into purchasing them
Critics of loot boxes argue that game manufacturers engineer their games to encourage the purchase of loot boxes.
Dr Daniel King and Professor Paul Delfabbro, both from the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide, have described loot boxes as a 'predatory monetization scheme'. King and Delfrabbro claim that loot boxes encourage repeated player spending through intrusive and unavoidable promotions. For example, players who do not purchase loot boxes, find promotions for them occurring onscreen with increasing frequency. King and Delfrabbro further claim that the limited chance of securing the item being sought is not revealed. Both academics also observe that the game designers deliberately promote the purchase of desired items rather than encouraging skillful or strategic play. Via this strategy, the player's chances of completing the game's objectives seem so remote that only purchasing the promoted loot box seems to make success possible.
King and Delfrabbo have also noted that player data is collected and used to manipulate the presentation of loot boxes to increase the likelihood that players will purchase these items. Sometimes games are engineered to highlight the in-game advantages that can only be achieved through the purchase of loot boxes.
International researchers, Rune Nielsen and Pawel Grabarcyzk, have also noted several other characteristics of game design which are intended to promote the purchase of loot boxes. For example, players of Marvel Strike Force identified that they had been given different odds in the game's chance-based micro-transactions. It appeared that purchasing more loot boxes increased the likelihood of success in other aspects of the game creating a predisposition in gamers to make further purchases.
A further strategy employed to encourage the purchase of loot boxes in online competitive games is to pit players who have not purchased loot boxes against players who have bought these products. This is referred to as 'match making'. The virtual items won through loot boxes are significantly more powerful than free items and the player who has not made purchases is likely to lose repeatedly. If a player then decides to purchase loot boxes, they are likely to then be matched with those who have not, allowing them to begin winning games. This positively reinforces the decision to purchase a loot box.
Problems associated with the exploitation gamers have been observed around the world. The Singaporean newspaper, The Straits Times, published an analysis and opinion piece in November 2020, which highlighted the measures intentionally employed by games manufacturers to seduce players into purchasing ever-increasing numbers of loot boxes.
Critics have claimed that some of the most concerning instances of loot box promotion can be found in annual sports games, which are among the most popular of all games. Loot boxes purchased in one game do not carry over to subsequent years' releases, meaning that they must be repurchased each time. Critics claim that even avid gamers sometimes have difficulty understanding the intentionally convoluted monetisation mechanics of loot boxes and the various forms they take.
3. Games incorporating loot boxes have been linked to the development of problem gambling among young people
It has been claimed that the prevalence of mechanisms such as loot boxes in computer games is contributing to an increase in problem gambling, especially among young people.
The problem seems to be being fostered both by games which directly simulate gambling scenarios and by those which offer chance-based rewards for either direct cash outlay or the use of in-game currency.
In the United Kingdom, the problem gambling rate for adolescents accounts for between 0.8-2.2 per cent of the teenage population compared with just 0.5 per cent in the adult population.
There is growing evidence that the playing of gambling-like games without money being involved (such as playing Slotzmania or Texas Hold 'Em Poker on social networking sites) is a gateway to real money gambling and is one of the risk factors for teenage problem gambling.
The United Kingdom Gambling Commission published its annual statistics in 29019 showing that based on a self-report survey of 2865 children and adolescents aged 11-16 year-olds, that the prevalence of problem gambling had risen to 1.7% (2% for boys and 1.3% for girls) compared to 0.4% in 2016 and 0.9% in 2017
Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction at Nottingham Trent University, has explained how a range of video games exploit gambling-like features to progressively lure young players into increasing their expenditure. Griffiths further suggests that these games prime young players to experiment with more conventional forms of gambling. Griffiths states, 'We know the playing of gambling-like activities is a major risk factor for both gambling with real money in the first place and problem gambling in later life...
With "freemium games" children can play the games for nothing but have to pay for additional content. Freemium games are a way of luring people in to play in the first place but to progress in the game it will cost money. Arguably, it's a bit like a drug dealer giving out free drugs to get people hooked.'
Even young people themselves believe there may be a connection between playing certain sorts of video games and developing a gambling habit. According to a report by the Royal Society for Public Health in December 2019, more than half of young people believe that playing video games could lead to gambling.
The director of mental health for the National Health Service (NHS), Clair Murdoch, has endorsed this view. Ms Murdoch has stated, 'Frankly, no company should be setting kids up for addiction by teaching them to gamble on the content of these loot boxes.
No firm should sell to children loot box games with this element of chance, so yes, those sales should end.'
Ms Murdoch has stated that although the National Health Service offers programs to help young people deal with gambling addictions once they have developed this problem, steps must be taken to help prevent them developing this problem in the first place.
Ms Murdoch has explained, 'Young people's health is at stake, and although the NHS is stepping up with these new, innovative services available to families through our long-term plan, we cannot do this alone, so other parts of society must do what they can to limit risks and safeguard children's wellbeing.'
Damian Collins, the chair of a British House of Commons committee examining the question of causes of problem gambling, has stated, 'Loot boxes are particularly lucrative for games companies but come at a high cost, particularly for problem gamblers, while exposing children to potential harm. Buying a loot box is playing a game of chance and it is high time the gambling laws caught up. We challenge the government to explain why loot boxes should be exempt from the Gambling Act."
4. Loot boxes retrigger recovering problem gamblers
Opponents of loot boxes claim that not only do they promote problem gambling among young people they pose a particular risk for older players who are trying to overcome a gambling addiction.
New research has found that there is a significant relationship between problematic gambling behaviors and spending money on loot boxes. The findings indicate that people who spend more money on loot boxes are also more likely to be unable to keep their gambling habits in check.
Keith S. Whyte, Executive Director of the United States National Council on Problem Gambling has attempted to define problem gambling. He has stated, 'The essential features are increasing preoccupation with gambling, a need to bet more money more frequently, restlessness or irritability when attempting to stop, "chasing" losses, and loss of control manifested by continuation of the gambling behavior in spite of mounting, serious, negative consequences. In extreme cases, problem gambling can result in financial ruin, legal problems, loss of career and family, or even suicide.'
Whyte has noted that the frequently made claim that videogames cannot be regarded as a form of gambling or as a precursor to gambling unless they involve the outlay or real money for real cash prizes. Whyte argues that this is misleading and dangerous as the sort of psychological payoff that comes from risk is anticipation of possible reward is replicated in many videogames.
Whyte notes, 'The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders and World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems clinical criteria for gambling disorder do not require that rewards be 'real money' or preclude a diagnosis if the client played with virtual coins or received several free plays before spending excessive amounts of time and money purchasing loot boxes and developing a gambling or retriggering a problem.'
Some experts argue that the frequently repeated claim that video games and their use of loot boxes do not equate with gambling is particularly dangerous. This is because it lures the recovering problem gambler into a false sense of security, allowing him or her to believe that he or she can safely play these video games when in reality they are likely to prompt a return of their gambling disorder.
Whyte states, 'There is a reasonable concern that gambling-related harm may occur to some loot box users... at risk for gambling problems...Impulsivity, the inclination to act on urges without significant regard for consequences, is associated with both video game playing and with risk taking, especially addiction.'
Whyte argues for increased regulation to limit the capacity for problem gamblers to access potential triggers and for wide spread community and educational support to buffer addictive personalities as they address their problem. He states, 'Strong regulation is important, but it cannot be effective at reducing harm unless accompanied by equally robust prevention, education, treatment, recovery and research services.'
5. Loot boxes are diminishing the quality of video games
Some critics are concerned that the use of loot boxes is damaging the gaming industry and reducing the quality of video games. They claim that the increasing use of loot boxes is allowing the industry to release for sale less than optimally developed games and to continue to draw income from them via these microtransactions. They also argue that the prevalence of loot boxes reduces the need for players to develop skills in order to progress through a game.
In 2019, Daniel Slavey, a contributor to Roarbots, noted that when companies add loot boxes and other similar systems into their games and still see tremendous profit, they are more likely to add them to future installments, as well. They are thus able to continue to draw profits from their games without making substantial improvements to new versions.
Slavey also argues that as other smaller companies see the success loot boxes have in these larger games, they may be more inspired to add them to their games. Overall, the more loot boxes are added to games and the more they go unchallenged, the more they will damage the player experience. They may also lead to more pay-to-win systems being implemented in the future.
The way in which loot boxes lead to a progressive reduction in game quality has been explained by games blogger Shamus Young in a comment posted on July 14, 2020. Young writes, 'In a game with fixed pricing the designer has an incentive to make the game as fun and engaging as possible. More fun means more sales. More fun means users stick around and pay the monthly MMO (massively multiplayer online game) fee longer. It means people will be more likely to buy the expansions.
But if you're selling the game to a player a tiny chunk at a time, then you want to push them to spend more. The last thing you want is to make the game as good as possible. If the game feels complete, then the users won't be motivated to add anything to it.'
Other critics note that loot boxes are diminishing the quality of the gaming experience because they encourage players to buy items they need, rather than earn them through their carefully developed skills. In an article published in Games Radar in October 2017, Alex Avard wrote, 'The loot box commodifies player progression and defines reward in purely economic terms.'
Shamus Young wrote, 'Loot boxes attack the entire premise of video games.' Young went on to explain that video games are contests in which players earn rewards by developing skills. Supplying examples, Young argues, 'Maybe you memorize all of the combos so you can beat your opponents in Street Fighter, or maybe you use logic to solve the puzzles in Hexcells Infinite, or maybe you grind mobs in the Canyon of the Magi looking for rare drops... but you're doing stuff within the game to get stuff.'
According to Young the pleasure of the game comes from a combination of the 'stuff' earned and the skills developed in order to earn these rewards. He concludes, 'The stuff you get is your motivation and the stuff you do is the gameplay that (hopefully) makes the process fun.' According to this model of gaming, diminishing the importance of skill acquisition reduces the fun of the game.